Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:43:01 -0400 | Subject | Re: kernel.org status: establishing a PGP web of trust | From | Arnaud Lacombe <> |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:44 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:50:08 EDT, Arnaud Lacombe said: > >> Just thinking about it, but even if lawyers have been involved, this >> has been done, unless error of my part, behind closed doors, without >> any public records, so I'd tempted to ask "who paid those lawyers?", >> "what was the qualification of those lawyers?", "what was the interest >> of those lawyers?" and "what was the interest of those who paid the >> lawyers?". > > At least in the US, the answer to "what was the interest of those lawyers?" is > almost always "to represent the interests of their clients in a legally ethical > manner". Intentional disregard for the client's interests can and does get you > disbarred. Any lawyer who stuck in a clause that was contrary to the client's > interest would also be doing so against their own interest - lawyers can get > sued for malpractice or (as noted) even disbarrment. So I don't think you need > to worry about some lawyer with a pro-Microsoft agenda secretly sticking in a > hidden phrase that's actually against Linux's interest. (In particular, it's > *really* hard to hide detrimental language in something as short and heavily > read as the Developer's Certificate of Origin). > > And if you *do* worry about that, you better also question whether the > people supplying tin foil are part of the conspiracy too. > I do not particularly worry about any of the question I wrote, I was merely raising unknown, from some excerpt of http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20101227144336645.
- Arnaud -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |